±«Óătv

Hi Newsnight

perhaps the truth is that there is money to be made from stories from the cold war? true or not

I visited Berlin a year or so ago and there is a whole industry dedicated to this sort of stuff, makes you think it couldn’t have been that bad otherwise people might wish to forget?

Just some questions, wasn’t your guest last night still bound by the official secrets act or doesn’t that sort of thing matter any more?

And perhaps our arrangement for firing nuclear weapons overcame one of the weakness in the system, the politician at the top of the tree?

Say the psychologists of the other side reckoned a politician wouldn’t fire the weapons if it came to it, what then?

Say what you like for Bush everyone knows he would push the trigger which makes the US deterrent far more deadly,

And what if the other side installed one of their lot in number 10, or had a hold over them, so knew for sure that he wouldn’t order the use of the weapon? the whole deterrent falls down.

Back to the issues behind www.vetmps.org.uk, still off line, we doing our best to put it back up again,

Loved the film clips last night, was intended in the way it came across? One of my old time favourites is the Looking Glass War.

best wishes
Bob

Hi Newsnight

perhaps the truth is that there is money to be made from stories from the cold war? true or not

I visited Berlin a year or so ago and there is a whole industry dedicated to this sort of stuff, makes you think it couldn’t have been that bad otherwise people might wish to forget?

Just some questions, wasn’t your guest last night still bound by the official secrets act or doesn’t that sort of thing matter any more?

And perhaps our arrangement for firing nuclear weapons overcame one of the weakness in the system, the politician at the top of the tree?

Say the psychologists of the other side reckoned a politician wouldn’t fire the weapons if it came to it, what then?

Say what you like for Bush everyone knows he would push the trigger which makes the US deterrent far more deadly,

And what if the other side installed one of their lot in number 10, or had a hold over them, so knew for sure that he wouldn’t order the use of the weapon? the whole deterrent falls down.

Back to the issues behind www.vetmps.org.uk, still off line, we doing our best to put it back up again,

Loved the film clips last night, was intended in the way it came across? One of my old time favourites is the Looking Glass War.

best wishes
Bob

The Government, the Bank of England, Northern Rock executives and nearly all banking spokespersons assured the nation that the problem was temporary liquidity, and not fundamental profitability. We were told that its core assets (UK mortgage portfolio) was "sound" and that it was quite a good and profitable business. If the taxpayer pays a penny to Northern Rock, or its purchaser, then Brown et al should resign, and a criminal case immediately opened. Just today we see a suspended sentence against a lady in her 80s, with a conviction against her husband and son for hoodwinking the experts at UK museums and Christies with fake artefacts. Is it equally likely that a Banking executive will be investigated if it turns out that solemn assurances provided on television turn out to be porkies, designed to stem the panic? I doubt it, as the victims names are Mr, Mrs or Ms Joe or Josephine Public. Remember Farepak last year?

The Government, the Bank of England, Northern Rock executives and nearly all banking spokespersons assured the nation that the problem was temporary liquidity, and not fundamental profitability. We were told that its core assets (UK mortgage portfolio) was "sound" and that it was quite a good and profitable business. If the taxpayer pays a penny to Northern Rock, or its purchaser, then Brown et al should resign, and a criminal case immediately opened. Just today we see a suspended sentence against a lady in her 80s, with a conviction against her husband and son for hoodwinking the experts at UK museums and Christies with fake artefacts. Is it equally likely that a Banking executive will be investigated if it turns out that solemn assurances provided on television turn out to be porkies, designed to stem the panic? I doubt it, as the victims names are Mr, Mrs or Ms Joe or Josephine Public. Remember Farepak last year?

Isn't the best course of action for the Bank of England to buy Northern Rock outright, nationalise it?

Dear Peter Barron,

Michael Crick's Newsnight 'report' (16 November 2007) on the split within Respect was a disgraceful piece of shallow, biased 'journalism'.

We had the usual and expected cheap jibes and trivialities (Life of Brian-type factionalisms and that well-worn footage of Galloway in his Big Brother attire.) But, we also had offensive, insulting commentary from Crick on those who form part of this movement.

I'd like you to consider very seriously the propriety of a so-called investigative reporter talking in sneering tones of the (former) Respect coalition as “Muslims, Marxists and a ragbag of others on the left.”

I actually count myself as a supportive part of that “ragbag” left tradition. Are people who have contributed as activists, academics and in other socially-progressive ways just to be dismissed in such derisory terms? And why the implied assumption of Muslims, Marxists and the “ragbag” as somehow distinct? Can't a Muslim also be a Marxist – or part of the “ragbag”?

Is it remotely possible to report earnestly, analytically and, dare I say it, intellectually, on such matters? Or does Gavin Esler's own sneering laugh at the end of the piece represent the true nature of Newsnight's approach to covering the left? I strongly suspect so.

You should really be embarrassed by Crick's puerile output. It's no more qualitative than that expected of the Sun.

Regards,
John

Dear Peter Barron,

Michael Crick's Newsnight 'report' (16 November 2007) on the split within Respect was a disgraceful piece of shallow, biased 'journalism'.

We had the usual and expected cheap jibes and trivialities (Life of Brian-type factionalisms and that well-worn footage of Galloway in his Big Brother attire.) But, we also had offensive, insulting commentary from Crick on those who form part of this movement.

I'd like you to consider very seriously the propriety of a so-called investigative reporter talking in sneering tones of the (former) Respect coalition as “Muslims, Marxists and a ragbag of others on the left.”

I actually count myself as a supportive part of that “ragbag” left tradition. Are people who have contributed as activists, academics and in other socially-progressive ways just to be dismissed in such derisory terms? And why the implied assumption of Muslims, Marxists and the “ragbag” as somehow distinct? Can't a Muslim also be a Marxist – or part of the “ragbag”?

Is it remotely possible to report earnestly, analytically and, dare I say it, intellectually, on such matters? Or does Gavin Esler's own sneering laugh at the end of the piece represent the true nature of Newsnight's approach to covering the left? I strongly suspect so.

You should really be embarrassed by Crick's puerile output. It's no more qualitative than that expected of the Sun.

Regards,
John

Sir, Why are they having a go at Michael Crick? He's a good Man U supporter who gets under the noses of lying politicians, I can forgive him the Man U bit but he does miss afew open goals when he has them on the ropes but overall he's a valued part of the Newsnight team and always watchable, how many can you say that about, the science lady makes me drop off and I just about catch Jeremy's paper review, but I'm just picky.

Sir, Why are they having a go at Michael Crick? He's a good Man U supporter who gets under the noses of lying politicians, I can forgive him the Man U bit but he does miss afew open goals when he has them on the ropes but overall he's a valued part of the Newsnight team and always watchable, how many can you say that about, the science lady Susan Watts makes me drop off and I just about catch Jeremy's paper review, but I'm just picky.

Sir, Why are they having a go at Michael Crick? He's a good Man U supporter who gets under the noses of lying politicians, I can forgive him the Man U bit but he does miss afew open goals when he has them on the ropes but overall he's a valued part of the Newsnight team and always watchable, how many can you say that about, the science lady Susan Watts makes me drop off and I just about catch Jeremy's paper review, but I'm just picky.

Great to see Ken Loach established film making on the ±«Óătv a very talented man indeed.

RESPECT: Stalinists/Trotskyites split:- it's Old/New Labour in microcosm. The SWP will go nowhere as their cousins already rule the roost, and George's Old Labour pals don't stand much of a chance either as Cameron will poach on their turf.

Still not enough people dare ask who has the most to gain through fostering Islamophobia. Why?

Despite several requests for the Newsnight team to look into the disconnect between what the research says and what New Labour politicians say viz SureStart, Aiming High, and SEAL (which seem to amount to little more than pumping large amounts of public money into deprived (largely inner city) areas so that it can be pumped out again to snake-oil salespersons and their organisations, nobody seems too bothered...

For an example of remarkably puzzling spin, look into what Ed Balls said about the SEAL programme and compare with what the Primary School research he was clearly basing his remarks upon (there is no other) actually reported (it's referenced on the blog some time back).

When it comes to Marxists, it's New Labour and the rest of the Socialist International that people should be worried about (although Cameron's Anarcho-Capitalists are no better - they're all neocons now).

Given the potential scale of our looming (but evident) social problems (which operate across the Atlantic too), there been little or no UK media coverage of the USA ETS report released back in February 2007 (see the Leitch Report too).

If it isn't global warming we should be worrying about, it's certainly national (if not global) dimming.

We're breeding differentially - just how stupid can we get or are we past noticing?

Ed, each time I've drawn attention to the (now surely obvious?) fact that a) developed world indigenous populations are not only well below replacement level and therefore in negative population growth, but are also b) showing signs of differential fertility with respect to cognitive ability and that c) elsewhere, less able/accomplished populations have positive population growth but d) even steeper differential fertility, you appear to think that a) & b) are less of a problem than c) & d).

I don't understand why.

My point here is:- who is going to get to grips with c) & d) in the future if a) & b) continues as it is?

If planning and self-control are positive functions of cognitive ability, surely a) & b) critically matter as there will soon be less competent people to manage their own and other people's behaviours?

The People's Republic of China (PRC) could save the day, but even if they do, it won't be through compliance with EU Reform Treaty's or UN Fundamental Charter of Human Rights, as this proscribes the PRC's 1995 'eugenics' legislataion as I've remarked before. I don't see the PRC looking favourably upon what remains of the EU/UN in the future if it ever tries to put pressure upon the PRC in this area. Quite the opposite in fact. Note how Russia and the PRC tend to veto the free-democratic world's 'imperialism' as it is.

The wise. Is that a reference to a white minority group which like the Muslims, still sustains traditional gender roles (although few criticise *them* as sexist).

Incidentally, Salk, born in NY, was a member of this 'minority' group, but given NYC's past and current demographics (see below), the high achievemements of this group should, I suggest, come as far less of a surprise than they often do, as they are not, it would seem, the minority which many believe them to be (in NYC at least, perhaps the cultural centre of the USA - people often make errors through failing to appreciate that it's usually local base rates which matter).

/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/wednesday_19_september_2007.html

Adrienne, Your points are all valid, but why are you fighting it? Isn't it becoming obvious that intelligence is dying out? It was tried as a survival trait but has failed (hence the mess we are now in) so Old Mother Nature is phasing it out. Back to the trees folks!

Ed, it isn't so much a matter of INCREASING national skills/intelligence, it's one of arresting their DECLINE through dysgenesis via policies which are ostensibly supposed to be compensatory, but which may paradoxically be operating as drivers/catalysts.

Fazer (#27) One reason it's worth fighting is if it's policy driven.

As things are, we are likely to see progressively more strain put upon schools to attain the impossible (cf. the CVA regression model they are judged by, and which makes 'clever' use of multicolinearity to make them appear like unwitting racists) as teachers are required to achieve unrealistic SAT and GCSE results given the ever lowering ability of their pupil intakes (through dysgenesis and immigration). It puts unfair demands/strains on both staff and pupils, relieved only by a covert lowering of national standards and thus Kafkaesque disconnect between the paper results attained by school leavers and employer's observation of employees abilities. We should also expect more indiscipline and crime.

Now who would welcome any of that?

Ed (#30) The UK (England/Regional Assembles) can't (despite the UN) do very much about other countries' problems, as they have their own governments and some have UN vetoes.

Given the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty, it may not be long before we're able to do even less nationally. Is subordination to the EU likely to help future elected governments better manage this problem or render them impotent?

My remarks should be read in this limited, pragmatic context.